Matt Morrison wrote:If you're going by what they were like when they were on the show I fail to see on what basis you could place Conor as high as 2nd. I don't think you could point to a patch of games and say he was particularly exceptional there.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Matt Morrison wrote:If you're going by what they were like when they were on the show I fail to see on what basis you could place Conor as high as 2nd. I don't think you could point to a patch of games and say he was particularly exceptional there.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Is that a Beevers quote? Sounds very familiar without bothering to check.Matt Morrison wrote:If you're going by what they were like when they were on the show I fail to see on what basis you could place Conor as high as 2nd. I don't think you could point to a patch of games and say he was particularly exceptional there.
and burgers and hotdogs and cakes and crisps and biscuitsDave Preece wrote:Eating and words spring to my mind?
Jon Corby wrote:and burgers and hotdogs and cakes and crisps and biscuitsDave Preece wrote:Eating and words spring to my mind?
Not many people (including Craig and Paul) are going to beat someone who is maxing games by getting the conundrum in 0.5 second, or indeed 13/14 maxes (a la the final) then nailing the conundrum instantly. Virtually unbeatable that tournament.Tom wrote: From what I’ve heard and read Craig and Paul were both extremely good and on their day maybe could have been contenders to win the 30th tournament had they been in it. I’ve heard they are both top scrabblers which might mean the reason they didn’t participate?
I wasn't going to bother with this one, but I really like that definition. So here's mine.Clive Brooker wrote:I'm basing this to a large extent on subjectivity; people who in my judgment have had the most profound impact on the game and the way it's played nowadays:
I'm not sure that Kirk or Craig actually did take performance to a different level, relative to Julian Fell and Paul Gallen in particular who went before them. And Chris Wills probably wasn't any better than Harvey Freeman or Allan Saldanha at their respective peaks - certainly not a different level anyway.David Williams wrote:I wasn't going to bother with this one, but I really like that definition. So here's mine.Clive Brooker wrote:I'm basing this to a large extent on subjectivity; people who in my judgment have had the most profound impact on the game and the way it's played nowadays:
Mark Nyman
Harvey Freeman
Chris Wills
Julian Fell
Craig Beevers
Kirk Bevins
Conor Travers
Damian Eadie
Charlie Reams
Mike Brown
The first seven all took performance to a different level to anything seen before. The last three were all successful contestants, but that's not why they make my Hall of Fame.
It's subjective. I never saw Mark Nyman or Harvey Freeman, who seemed to me great but fallible. Chris Wills was a step up in that he got the same sort of words as I did, but never seemed to miss anything, and at the time had the highest scores ever. Julian Fell was a step up because he was just as consistent but also got words I'd never heard of, and gave the distinct impression that he'd memorised the dictionary. Craig Beevers was a step up because he was also just as impressive on the numbers, and could have scored even higher than he did if he hadn't played safe a good bit for tactical reasons. Kirk Bevins was a step up because he was the first to get to a level where a max game became a serious possibility, and Conor Travers was a step up because with him the max game is a probability. Others may have outscored my choices, but I'd still see them as operating at the same level rather than going to a different one. It's all opinion, but these are the ones who've had the biggest impact on me.Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm not sure that Kirk or Craig actually did take performance to a different level, relative to Julian Fell and Paul Gallen in particular who went before them. And Chris Wills probably wasn't any better than Harvey Freeman or Allan Saldanha at their respective peaks - certainly not a different level anyway.David Williams wrote:I wasn't going to bother with this one, but I really like that definition. So here's mine.Clive Brooker wrote:I'm basing this to a large extent on subjectivity; people who in my judgment have had the most profound impact on the game and the way it's played nowadays:
Mark Nyman
Harvey Freeman
Chris Wills
Julian Fell
Craig Beevers
Kirk Bevins
Conor Travers
Damian Eadie
Charlie Reams
Mike Brown
The first seven all took performance to a different level to anything seen before. The last three were all successful contestants, but that's not why they make my Hall of Fame.
I was thinking that when these "great" lists comes out, normally you'd base it on some combination of skill when they were on and success. If it was purely on success, I'd probably go for:Gavin Chipper wrote:I'll go for this ten contestants thing, even if it hasn't proven popular so far. In chronological order of first appearance:
Mark Nyman
Harvey Freeman
Allan Saldanha
Don Reid
Graham Nash
Julian Fell
Paul Gallen
Conor Travers
Jack Hurst
Edward McCullagh
I suppose this is the main bit I'd take issue with. He was certainly the first to make a max game an actuality (in the 15-round era), but I don't think he was playing any better than Craig Beevers or Paul Gallen at the time, and they certainly could have maxed a game, but just happened not to.David Williams wrote:[Kirk Bevins was a step up because he was the first to get to a level where a max game became a serious possibility
Didn't Conor have a 14-max game during his initial run, only missing the very tricky PERSONAE+S?Gavin Chipper wrote:I suppose this is the main bit I'd take issue with. He was certainly the first to make a max game an actuality (in the 15-round era), but I don't think he was playing any better than Craig Beevers or Paul Gallen at the time, and they certainly could have maxed a game, but just happened not to.David Williams wrote:[Kirk Bevins was a step up because he was the first to get to a level where a max game became a serious possibility
Apparently he missed ARMHOLE and EARHOLE in another round that game, making it a mere 13 maxes.Chris Philpot wrote:Didn't Conor have a 14-max game during his initial run, only missing the very tricky PERSONAE+S?Gavin Chipper wrote:I suppose this is the main bit I'd take issue with. He was certainly the first to make a max game an actuality (in the 15-round era), but I don't think he was playing any better than Craig Beevers or Paul Gallen at the time, and they certainly could have maxed a game, but just happened not to.David Williams wrote:[Kirk Bevins was a step up because he was the first to get to a level where a max game became a serious possibility
Hey you can't knock keenness mate?Andy Platt wrote:I think you are too into this, why not just make an unofficial site like Dave's Countdown Hall of Fame or something and leave it at that
All right, you've twisted my arm. Here are my top 5 (totally subjective):Dave Preece wrote:Come on boys and girls, how come no others have good opinions?
No probs, Dave, keep up the good work.Dave Preece wrote:Thanks Jojo!
Adam Gillard wrote:All right, you've twisted my arm. Here are my top 5 (totally subjective):Dave Preece wrote:Come on boys and girls, how come no others have good opinions?
1) Tanmay Dixit
2) Tanmay Dixit
3) Tanmay Dixit
4) Edward McCullagh
5) Conor Travers
This is half the problem, Some feel they are in their own top 10, but are too modest to say! Maybe? Maybe not?Jojo Apollo wrote:No probs, Dave, keep up the good work.Dave Preece wrote:Thanks Jojo!
My list (alphabetical order) was based on a mix of the greats and who I most struggled to compete with during their runs/peaks, whilst playing along at home, no scientific analysis involved, just my inbuilt spidey sense of who are the best 10.
![]()
It would be nice to see the personal top tens of some of those on most of the shortlists, no need for modesty here, name yourself if you want.
Yeah defo, wouldn't want any more accurate or more interesting ranking lists or views now would we?Jon O'Neill wrote:Lock it up mods.
Yeah, defo should be above Chris (at least IMO), but no lists are 100%, this list doesn't take specials (as you obviously beat Chris in a special) into account AND it's scoring Chris's higher on his highest score - even though yours was a MAX, which did scored you more points!!!Kirk Bevins wrote:11th. Ouch
You can start by telling us how this one was compiled.Dave Preece wrote:Any suggestions to make this more accurate are more than welcome...
LikeGavin Chipper wrote:You can start by telling us how this one was compiled.Dave Preece wrote:Any suggestions to make this more accurate are more than welcome...
When you say they must have been "some sort of champion", what exactly does that mean? You have people who haven't yet featured in a quarter final, so do you just mean a regular daily champion - someone that's won a teapot?Dave Preece wrote:My scoring system used (which for the record was the 16th different system I have tried over the last few months):
Firstly all contestants must have been some sort of champion to qualify and all stats are taken only from championship games and not specials etc, etc.
Formula:
% of max + games played + % of games won + % of high score compared to 146 + best individual game % of max
Yeh you're so of right, but I was only trying to 'engineer' Julian Fell in the top 5, which in a large percentage of Countdown fans' eyes is accurate, but getting Fell near the top of a stat driven ranking list is hard without having obvious lower ranks up there too!Gavin Chipper wrote:When you say they must have been "some sort of champion", what exactly does that mean? You have people who haven't yet featured in a quarter final, so do you just mean a regular daily champion - someone that's won a teapot?Dave Preece wrote:My scoring system used (which for the record was the 16th different system I have tried over the last few months):
Firstly all contestants must have been some sort of champion to qualify and all stats are taken only from championship games and not specials etc, etc.
Formula:
% of max + games played + % of games won + % of high score compared to 146 + best individual game % of max
The main problem is that your system is completely arbitrary. It seems to me that you have your own idea of what the list should look like (you have a mental top ten or something), and then you've tried out lots of arbitrary formulas until you found one that sort of matched. So it's a complete fudge.
If that is what you've done, I'd be surprised if it turned out to be the "best" system once we have a few more greats.
It also seems rather pointless to do that. If you have a mental top ten anyway, why not just present them as your top ten, rather than try and make them fit into a formula? The problem with greatness is that it's quite an abstract and subjective concept. Do you base it on outright success? Someone's skill when they were on the show? Is that the highest level of skill they attained, or the average level of skill across their run? People can base it on all these things and more but how you weight the categories is just subjective judgement. Yeah, I suppose you can try and come up with a formula that fits quite well how you personally judge things, but categories such as "% of high score compared to 146" suggest a fudge. The test would be how well it worked for future data. Anyone can fudge a formula for a small amount of existing data.
You could just have one of % of max score and % of max rounds. They do measure slightly different things though. People seem to prefer rounds but according to this, scoring 0 is as good as one of the max. % of score may show consistency.Dave Preece wrote:What other key 'key performance indicators' should be used in all you opinions?
Number of maxs
% of max I feel is a must
Games played is also to ensure % of max isnt a fuke
% of games won surely should also be there
What else???